Thomas v. Williams’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

4 state decisions

Most-quoted passages

The sentences later courts lift from this opinion, ranked by how many decisions quote each — the parts of the opinion doing the work. These counts are smaller than the citation total above because most of the 8 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

1. ““The tort of outrage requires that: (1) the actor intended to inflict emotional distress, or knew or should have known that emotional distress was likely to result from his conduct; (2) the conduct was extreme and outrageous; (3) the defendant’s actions caused the plaintiff distress; and (4) ... the distress was severe. With respect to the conduct element, this Court has stated that the conduct must be ‘so outrageous in character and so extreme in degree as to go beyond all possible bounds of decency, and to be regarded as atrocious and utterly intolerable in a civilized society.’ ””

   2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. 957 F. Supp. 2d 1320 - Hill ex rel. BHJ v. Madison County School Board · 5 F. Supp. 3d 1304 - Thompson v. City of Birmingham

2. “recognized ... in regard to only three kinds of conduct: (1) wrongful conduct in the family-burial context ...; (2) barbaric methods employed to coerce an insurance settlement ...; and (3) egregious sexual harassment.”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. Wilson v. Univ. of Ala. Health Servs. Found., P.C.

3. “the tort of outrage is the same cause of action as intentional infliction of emotional distress.”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. Wilson v. Univ. of Ala. Health Servs. Found., P.C.